3 ms·
> I wonder if this system produced more new styles of play. One thing Alpha go has told us clearly is that it thinks human players over value the margin of vic
by jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
> I wonder if this system produced more new styles of play.
One thing Alpha go has told us clearly is that it thinks human players over value the margin of victory vs the probability of victory.
- edanm 9y agoI'm not 100% sure I agree. It values probability of victory because that's it's goal. For humans, aiming only for probability of victory might not be as good, because we're much worse at estimating probabilities. So aiming for maintaining a large margin at all times is conceivably the best proxy that we can use in practice.
- pmontra 9y agoAgreed. I know I'm winning by 4 points but I have no idea about my probability of winning. However if I'm winning I know that I should play low risk moves and refrain from starting complicated fights. That increases the probability of winning. IMHO the exact value is out of reach for human beings.
- derefr 9y agoIt would be interesting to play human go, assisted by a go computer that doesn't say anything about moves, but rather just spits out, for each player, their current likelihood of victory if all further moves by both players were "what it would do." That way, each player could know, at all times, (one major factor that goes into) their probability of winning. They'd still have to mentally adjust it for the likelihood of them and their opponent making an error, and how that can be controlled by making intimidating moves, etc. But it could lead to much tighter control on the abstract flow of the game. It'd almost be like the computer was the general, issuing strategy, picking battles; and the human player the tactician, fighting those battles.
- pmontra 9y agoThere is computer go program (maybe Crazy Stone?) that analyzes a game record and annotates it with the winning percentage for every move. Knowing that the opponent's winning probability changed from 52 to 57 was interesting only because it hints at a mistake. In case of such a large change the program suggests the move it would have played. I saw an annotated game record and there were no variations: I remember a suggested move that made me wonder "why!?". Another benefit of seeing the value of the winning probability is an assessment of who's ahead. However that's already possible with the score estimation that programs and go servers provide. Sometimes is crude, sometimes is good, but it's the score, not the winning probability that humans can estimate when playing. The best probability estimate I can make is: if the score is close and the game is still complicated, it's 50-50; if the score is close but the game is almost over, it's 95-5 for who's ahead. If the score is not close, the player with more points will probably win.
- fjsolwmv 9y agoHa, like watching someone play a game and moaning or cheering at their plays.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y agoPart of that could be trying to compensate for counting skills that aren't quite at machine levels.
- roenxi 9y agoThe Go community learned to understand that the margin of victory is meaningless along time ago. The most famous game of Honinbo Dosaku, a famous Go player from the late 1600s, is arguably a game where he gave a handicap to his opponent and lost by one point. Lee Chang-Ho, who was the reigning champion in the late 90s, had a style that consistently tried to win by small margins. AlphaGo now appears to be better than humans in all aspects of gameplay, and it better at calculating very thin margins of probability that a human cannot. This is not unique to any individual aspect of its gameplay; against humans it can also win by huge margins depending on what mistakes the human makes.
- hasenj 9y agoI think if AlphaGo foresaw it was losing by one point, it would start playing reckless moves, as it did against Lee-Sedol in the only match it lost against him.